Works in the same way as my proposal to give everybody the points (my way would allow Widnes to look a bit better if a casual viewer scanned the table).

I also think it will be a moot point anyway.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190[/url

"Super League bosses will allow Bradford Bulls to finish the season as a new company even if the club goes into liquidation in the coming weeks. "

good news

Makes a total nonsense of the new company though if the new company can inherit the old companies records, points, the only thing they lose is the debt.

Surely they are either the same old company, or a new company, they can't be both.

Wrong. The cap was ORIGINALLY introduced to prevent clubs overspending on players i.e. spending beyond their means. As DaveO has already highlighted.

Subsequently the cap was "twisted" to promote a "level playing field" (whatever that means) and the 50% rule quietly discarded.

This effectively re-created the ability for clubs to overspend.


WLA once again your ability to turn a perfectly sensible post into some kind of personal insult comes to the fore.

I suggest if you want to read "tosh", then it would be wise to look at your keyboard.

Of course. Don't you?

This was the original purpose of the CC.

Actually I don't.

However I was however under the obvious mis-understanding that you wanted the salary cap increasing when in fact you want it reducing. Sorry for my mis-understanding.

Yes it has and it still in fact does.

Form the operational rules in section E1:

1. Purpose, Scope and Application

1.1 The RFL has adopted these Salary Cap Regulations (the "Regulations"icon_wink.gif in order to regulate
the value of playing talent available to each Club participating in the league competition
managed by the RFL and currently known as the Super League. The overriding purpose of
the Regulations is to protect and promote the long-term health and viability of the game of
rugby league. Within that overriding purpose, the specific objectives are:

1.1.1 to protect the integrity of the Super League competition by ensuring that the
determinative factor in the sporting outcome is on-field sporting merit and not offfield financial considerations;

1.1.2 to ensure that the Super League competition remains competitive and therefore
attractive to spectators and commercial partners by preventing Clubs with greater
financial resources dominating the competition and by ensuring a balanced spread
of Players among the participating Clubs;

1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs
trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable
financial arrangements;



The cap has clearly failed in "prevent(ing) Bradford (from) trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable
financial arrangements;" so it looks like the usual suspects know their facts and you, err, don't.



It is of course ultimately the Bulls directors fault but the cap has certainly failed in one of its stated purposes.

Had the 50% rule still been in force it may well not have.

It was only discarded when the cap went "live". It was still in the rules when it first went to a flat rate cap. They removed a safeguard that may well have protected the Bradford directors from themselves.

Insolvency laws exist for a reason, and unfortunately in cases like this you're often damned if you do and damned if you don't.

For instance, if Bradford Bulls folded, that means everyone associated with the club is out of work, and the company's assets - if any - are sold to repay creditors. Once that's done, that's it. Finished. Gone. Think Woolworths.

If someone comes along to buy the 'business', it doesn't necessarily mean the debts are completely wiped. The purchase price of the business goes towards paying the creditors, less IP fees. Granted, creditors may not get much compared with what they're owed, but vitally, it means that employees jobs are saved.

If going bust saves, in this case, 50 or so jobs, then is going bust really such a bad thing?

Their players become free agents, which means they're just as entitled to re-sign for Bradford as they are another club.

In fact at this stage in the season, probably only a reformed Bradford would be able to take them on.

Its actually the daftest thing I've read during this saga. The idea seems to be that the existing club will be liquidated and that a Supporters Trust will instantly emerge and seemlessly take over the running of the club. In mid season. Its laughable.

Damn. You beat this usual suspect to it!

Yeh I only thought about this today, very true, quotas and salary caps would stop a few players going.

I guess the difference in business and sport is that in business you would start again from scratch. In sport if you are kept in the top flight by the organising body you are not exactly starting from scratch, you have been given a starting edge over competitors such as Halifax, Feathstone, Leigh, oldham etc...

Keeping your points gives you a starting advantage over Salford, London, Widnes.

Like I say they will be a new business but not a new sporting entity which seams some what shady.

If BK did want the SC to be reduced then he would have already got his wish. The SC has already been reduced in real terms very significantly indeed, by at least 30% since its inception. This is due to the disgraceful failure to link the cap to RPI or wages inflation.

So, what point the salary cap?.....

Is it helping in any aspects of the game?.... Or is it a hinderance?

Is just papering over the massive crack of a HUGE shortage of funding in SL overall? Making SL completely unsustainable as a full time, professional sport, that can compete on the world stage?

While it is true if the club folded the debts may not be completely wiped it is guaranteed they won't be paid off in full or they wouldn't need to go into administration in the first place and incur whatever penalties that involves - assuming there are any (which there should be).

The point I was making was that it isn't acceptable to go bust and then a new club to rise form the ashes in exactly the same position as the one that went bust. Still in SL, no points deducted and so on.

It is fine for it to go bust and jobs be saved as you describe but it isn't fine for it to carry on as an entity we would all recognise as the Bradford Bulls (regardless of the holding company being new) as if nothing had happened. That would simply mean a legal mechanism had been used to shaft the creditors - which will include the clubs employees with no penalty. You can not run a professional sport like that and expect people to invest in it.

I agree, but it seams the law backs risk takers as opposed to sound financial planning.

Bring back the debtors prisons I say.



Whilst we are at it.

Hanging and other such liberal ideals....

No need to apologise, as you have misunderstood once again.

I want the CC abolished, however, if it is to remain then it must prove useful.

Abolish the ceiling, maintain a % cap of turnover/profit/some other measure.

Not that hard to understand is it?

Agreed. Perhaps I should have said "effectively abolished" to be more technically correct.

Btw on behalf of the other "usual suspects", I think we must apologise for continuing to oppose the CC even though Wigan are currently dominating the competitions......

As was pointed out on this forum numerous times over the last 5 years or so, we only opposed the CC on account of it's impact on our own club, not RL in general......................

Dave you obviously didn't read what I said properly. I said:



Which bit of that don't you and the usual suspects understand?



Copy and pasting purpose, aims etc didn't address my original point that the cap doesn't cause clubs to live beyond their means, bad management does.

Am I the only one that wants the Bulls to go into liquidation? nothing against the club or its fans just out of curiosity to actually see what happens.

Which bit of:

is so difficult to understand? The cap is no different to having a budget to live within your means, but if you spend beyond your budget it not the budget's fault is it? Bad management is to blame.

By the way if you think saying people were talking tosh is a personal insult you know neither the definition of "personal" nor "insult". Welcome back from your hibernation by the way, has it been nearly three months since a thread mentioned the cap?

What you actually said was:

"The cap have never had anything to do with whether clubs go bust or not. Whenever something like the Bulls situation happens the usual suspect come out with the usual tosh trying to blame the cap in the some way, instead of focusing on Directors of clubs mismanaging the finances."

Now given a stated aim of the cap is to "prevent(ing) Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements;" it is clearly supposed to have a lot to do with whether clubs go bust or not. It is supposed to help prevent it. As it was supposed to do when there was a 50% of turnover element. It has failed in this stated aim.

I also said "It is of course ultimately the Bulls directors fault but the cap has certainly failed in one of its stated purposes."

which for some reason you chose to ignore.

Not being funny WLA (and frankly without people who disagree, these forums would be dull), but which bit of DaveO's post above don't you understand?

If the 50% rule was kept in place it would help ensure clubs don't overspend. It wouldn't prevent it, of course, but it certainly would help.